This is literally the first amendment in action. Why are you trying to shut down freedom of speech?
This is literally the first amendment in action. Why are you trying to shut down freedom of speech?Thought police in action...
A sweeping crackdown on posts on Instagram and Facebook that are critical of Israel—or even vaguely supportive of Palestinians—was directly orchestrated by the government of Israel, according to internal Meta data obtained by Drop Site News. The data show that Meta has complied with 94% of takedown requests issued by Israel since October 7, 2023. Israel is the biggest originator of takedown requests globally by far, and Meta has followed suit—widening the net of posts it automatically removes, and creating what can be called the largest mass censorship operation in modern history...
Leaked Data Reveals Massive Israeli Campaign to Remove Pro-Palestine Posts on Facebook and Instagram
A sweeping crackdown on posts on Instagram and Facebook that are critical of Israel—or even vaguely supportive of Palestinians—was directly orchestrated by the government of Israel, according to internal Meta data obtained by Drop Site News.www.dropsitenews.com
And as reported by The Intercept several months ago, a former "senior Israeli govt official" is working for Meta and is actively flagging posts or accounts for censorship.
A former senior Israeli government official now working as Meta’s Israel policy chief personally pushed for the censorship of Instagram accounts belonging to Students for Justice in Palestine — a group that has played a leading role in organizing campus protests against Israel’s ongoing war in Gaza.
Internal policy discussions reviewed by The Intercept show Jordana Cutler, Meta’s Israel & the Jewish Diaspora policy chief, used the company’s content escalation channels to flag for review at least four SJP posts, as well as other content expressing stances contrary to Israel’s foreign policy. When flagging SJP posts, Cutler repeatedly invoked Meta’s Dangerous Organizations and Individuals policy, which bars users from freely discussing a secret list of thousands of blacklisted entities. The Dangerous Organizations policy restricts “glorification” of those on the blacklist, but is supposed to allow for “social and political discourse” and “commentary.”
Meta’s Israel Policy Chief Tried to Suppress Pro-Palestinian Instagram Posts
Jordana Cutler, Meta’s policy chief for Israel and the Jewish Diaspora, repeatedly flagged for censorship posts by Students for Justice in Palestine.theintercept.com
It is frankly baffling to me how people have such a hard time understanding that freedom of speech does not mean you get to force other people to say what you want against their will.Lord Felix is laughably ignorant which makes sense as one on the dole (according to him). The first amendment is clear. It is nothing to do with private business. Only THE GOVERNMENT.
Facebook could allow only registered Republicans on it or only Democrats. The government could and should do nothing. Facebook could ban the word “the” from its platform and the government would do nothing. You can feel free to associate with them or not but the government cannot enforce those rules. If the government forced Facebook to allow the word “the” on this private platform that would be a violation of its free speech.
Get a clue and get off the dole before the Fatherland deports you
No such thing as thought police on social media platforms because the thought police have no power over you.Sorry if the point missed some folks, but was referencing thought police in the media or social platforms, not in the govt.
Well if you feel comfortable with a largely uninformed populace that bases its views on distorted info or missing context from media, social platforms and helps keeps Lobby-bribed officials in power and influencing US foreign policy that leads to genocides and wars, so be it. You do you.No such thing as thought police on social media platforms because the thought police have no power over you.
If you mailed 1,000 leaflets to me that denied the holocaust and I declined to distribute them at my own expense am I the thought police? No, I'm simply someone who declines to amplify your speech for you at my own expense. The same principle applies here.
Why should they have to pay money to broadcast speech they don't want to? Isn't that just entitlement?
I didn't say I'm comfortable with it, I'm just not willing to throw the first amendment in the trash like you are.Well if you feel comfortable with a largely uninformed populace that bases its views on distorted info or missing context from media, social platforms and helps keeps Lobby-bribed officials in power and influencing US foreign policy that leads to genocides and wars, so be it. You do you.
Nothing to do with my position on 1st amendment. Simply pointing out that though police exists on media and social platforms that can have insidious repercussions on the politics and interests of countries. I simply wish for more transparency from wherever it may come, investigative journalism, etc, which I referenced.I didn't say I'm comfortable with it, I'm just not willing to throw the first amendment in the trash like you are.
Funny how frequently people who claim to be against authoritarianism are really just trying to substitute it with their own. You do you!
So to be clear someone declining to repeat your thoughts at their own expense are acting as 'thought police'. Do you realize how insane that sounds?Nothing to do with my position on 1st amendment. Simply pointing out that though police exists on media and social platforms that can have insidious repercussions on the politics and interests of countries. I simply wish for more transparency from wherever it may come, investigative journalism, etc, which I referenced.
In my experience people usually say this when they don't want to admit their opinions are wrong or shitty. That is unless you want to be consistent - if that's the case can you confirm you will print out and distribute whatever I ask you to at your own expense? After all, you wouldn't want to be the thought police.As pointed out on previous occasions, you do have a habit of misrepresenting others viewpoints for scoring internet points.
It is frankly baffling to me how people have such a hard time understanding that freedom of speech does not mean you get to force other people to say what you want against their will.
From where the in the depths of your ass do you pull this crap? Equating censored news or info on genocides with Nazi leaflets? Anything involving violence or hate speech is to be abhorred. Misrepresent away mofo. Will always be called out.If I send you some Nazi leaflets to distribute and you decline are you acting as the thought police or are you simply declining to spend your time and effort to spread my Nazi literature? Again the level of entitlement here is absolutely insane.
Echoing misrepresentations is no better, lol.Majority of the country reads below a 7th grade level.
Ahhhh so you ARE okay with the thought police so long as they are policing the right thoughts. If Facebook doesn't publish what you want them to publish they are the thought police. If you don't publish what you don't want to publish that's fine. You're a hypocrite.From where the in the depths of your ass do you pull this crap? Equating censored news or info on genocides with Nazi leaflets? Anything involving violence or hate speech is to be abhorred. Misrepresent away mofo. Will always be called out.
Your post also misses the larger point that media and social platforms can be places of mass distortion of facts, news and events. Doesnt mean the legality of that is in questionLook at on the dole Felix laughing at my first amendment post because he is the dole and has fifth grade reading comprehension and can’t dispute it.
Come on Felix on the dole. Tell us how my post was inaccurate. You can’t.
The right wing snow flakes demand Twitter leave their lies and Nazi filth up when it was taken down under Twitter’s first amendment rights.
Nazi Musk buys it claims free speech and promptly starts banning those who disagree with him and Felix cheers. That is is his right Felix claims because Nazi musk owns it.
such weak sauce Felix. You are so weak. Such fraudulent hypocrisy.
It is so basic. I loathe Nazis and think they should be censored by a private social media platform if that platform wants. However, if that platform wants to censor those who disagree with Nazis they can do that too. It is not me or the government to have say over either case.Ahhhh so you ARE okay with the thought police so long as they are policing the right thoughts. If Facebook doesn't publish what you want them to publish they are the thought police. If you don't publish what you don't want to publish that's fine. You're a hypocrite.
This is an utterly straightforward and logical consequence of your point. It makes you look bad though so you can't admit it.
Thought police being active in media and social platforms exist and I was pointing out examples of that. You took it to another level that has no bearing on that and injecting your own silly 'principled' tangents for the sole purpose of attempting to discredit someone whom you have tangled with in the past. Thats pure you.Ahhhh so you ARE okay with the thought police so long as they are policing the right thoughts. If Facebook doesn't publish what you want them to publish they are the thought police. If you don't publish what you don't want to publish that's fine. You're a hypocrite.
This is an utterly straightforward and logical consequence of your point. It makes you look bad though so you can't admit it.
lol I do not care if I 'tangled' with you in the past in even the slightest.Thought police being active in media and social platforms exist and I was pointing out examples of that. You took it to another level that has no bearing on that and injecting your own silly 'principled' tangents for the sole purpose of discrediting someone whom you have tangled with in the past. Thats pure you.
So you have no idea how the first amendment works. Got it. The “thought police” are allowed to do that on media and social platforms if is not enforced by the Government. Dear lord. Clueless.Thought police being active in media and social platforms exist and I was pointing out examples of that. You took it to another level that has no bearing on that and injecting your own silly 'principled' tangents for the sole purpose of attempting to discredit someone whom you have tangled with in the past. Thats pure you.
The other day the thought police at the bar threw me out because I wouldn't stop screaming racial slurs at other customers.It is so basic. I loathe Nazis and think they should be censored by a private social media platform if that platform wants. However, if that platform wants to censor those who disagree with Nazis they can do that too. It is not me or the government to have say over either case.
IT IS THEIR GOD DAMN PLATFORM. The government is not involved either way. Lord, the dumb and hypocrisy burns.
Wasnt this clear to you:So you have no idea how the first amendment works. Got it. The “thought police” are allowed to do that on media and social platforms if is not enforced by the Government. Dear lord. Clueless.
They are PRIVATE PLATFORMS. The first amendment does not apply. The platform can have much “thought police” as the platform wants. Left, right, Nazi, communist. It doesn’t matter. outside of direct threats and other limitations of the first amendment by the SCOTUS, the thought police are irrelevant as they are allowed. You don’t have to associate with any of it or any of the thought police if you don’t want.
Because you feel the “other side” is propaganda or “thought police” is irrelevant to first amendment on privately owned platforms.
Head and brick wall. No need to go insane.
Yes private platforms can do whatever they want. Doesnt mean that thought policing doesnt occur on them. Simple and to the point. Something you dont seem to want to stick to.Your post also misses the larger point that media and social platforms can be places of mass distortion of facts, news and events. Doesnt mean the legality of that is in question
But remember - you’re fine with the thought police so long as they police thoughts you don’t like.Wasnt this clear to you:
Yes private platforms can do whatever they want. Doesnt mean that thought policing doesnt occur on them. Simple and to the point. Something you dont seem to want to stick to.
Private platforms can do what they want. We are talking about the government punishing people for their speech, which is exactly what the 1A is supposed to protect. There is no requirement in the 1A that any media publisher must be forced to carry speech they disagree with.Wasnt this clear to you:
Yes private platforms can do whatever they want. Doesnt mean that thought policing doesnt occur on them. Simple and to the point. Something you dont seem to want to stick to.
This is so basic. My mind boggles at the hubris combined with ignorance regarding the first amendment. It is prettty straight forward in Constitution.The other day the thought police at the bar threw me out because I wouldn't stop screaming racial slurs at other customers.
We should all let it be known that bar patrons are being stomped under the jackboot of the thought police. Why won't they allow free speech?
I think his argument here is that when private companies choose not to broadcast his speech at their own expense this is also an example of thought policing.This is so basic. My mind boggles at the hubris combined with ignorance regarding the first amendment. It is prettty straight forward in Constitution.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Where the hell is Facebook or a bar or my private resident in that passage. My lord. It is about the compact between the Government and the people not about private associations between people.
Argjgjghfhfhfhhfhfhhfnnffnfnnfnnf